CalicoPenn

Sorry Trainerlady, technically Jet is correct. Here is what the application states is required in order to become a Boy Scout: * Meet the age requirements * Complete the application and sign indicating approval (parent). * Give the completed application and fees to the Scoutmaster * Secure a copy of the Boy Scout Handbook and complete the joining requirements as listed (and those requirements are listed as requirements for "earning" the Scout Badge). * Fill out the personal health history class 1 form and give it to the unit leader. Filling out and turning in the application does not automatically make one a Boy Scout. Only after all the requirements are met, including "earning" the Scout Badge, which indicates that the joining requirements are met, is one a Boy Scout. Until then, you have simply applied to be a Boy Scout. In order to be registered as a Boy Scout, a lad has to complete the joining requirements. That means that technically, a lad can't attend camp as a Boy Scout, or work on any ranks or merit badges, until he has his Scout badge (but he can still attend camp, and be covered under the BSA insurance, as a guest of the Troop). When a Webelos transfers to a Troop, he has to have a filled out application as well - and go through the same hoops. He may have paid his $1 transfer fee to the Scoutmaster, but he isn't a Boy Scout until the unit leader signs the application and turns it in to Council, which should be done after the joining requirements are met. Now is this what happens at the unit level? Not always (and quite possibly not often). As I said, it's doubtful anyone would make a fuss - but technically, a lad isn't a Boy Scout, not even a transfer from Cub Pack, until the requirements for joining are met. For Cub Scouts, things are different - one does not need to earn Bobcat before one becomes a Cub Scout. The requirements to become a Cub Scout are different: * Complete the information on the application and sign to signify your approval (parent) * Give the completed application and fees to the Cubmaster. * Meet the age requirements for the appropriate level * Fill in and turn in a health history Class 1 form. That's it - no mention of completing joining requirements, or completing Bobcat as a joining requirement. The application is filled out and signed, the fees are paid, the health history form is turned in and the Boy is considered a Cub Scout.

After viewing that video clip, I have to say I am disgusted. If I were the contingent Scoutmaster, or the Scout Executive of that council, I would be very unpoular right now because we would have marched right out of that arena and packed the bags and started for home - right then and there. The View is a Fox Noise red herring - the only people clinging to that are those that can't quite grasp that the President has a "magic airplane" at his disposal that could have easily gotten him to the jamboree site after taping The View. I'm glad to see that someone hasn't forgotten what happened the last time the President visited the Jamboree. And anyone who says security isn't an issue - the last time the President visited the Jamboree, it was on the same military installation - and security was still a nightmare. The FYI on that clip says "we booed him because he didn't come in person". Wrong - they booed him because they're inconsiderate little snot-bags who aren't living the Scout Oath or Scout Law in their every day life. Those are the Scouts I would say are not Eagle Scout material.

So the question is was the National Review Board wrong to draw the conclusion that the problem is one of homosexuality and not pedophila - and the answer is a resounding yes. The first problem with that statement is it is based solely on reported cases of abuse - and the key word there is reported. 80%+ of the reported cases of victims sexually abused by priests were homosexual in nature. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that 80%+ of actual cases were homosexual in nature. It could simply mean that more people were willing to report same sex abuse than opposite sex abuse. (Mathematical example - if there were 10,000 cases of actual abuse, 1,000 of which were homosexual in nature (10%) and 9,000 of which were heterosexual in nature (90%), but only 1,000 cases were reported, 800 of which were homosexual in nature (80% of 1,000), it becomes obvious that 80% of all cases aren't homosexual in nature). Unfortunately, there is still a bit of a double standard in this world - as afraid as they are to come out and state they were sexually abused by a priest, men are more likely to report than women because men are more likely to be believed at this time than women. Part of that is we have been bombarded with more media reports of abuse allegations by men than women - I've said it before, I'll probably say it thousands of more times - media wants a hook - males claiming they were abused by priests is a far bigger hook than females claiming they were abused by priests - it's not fair, but it happens. Reports in the media of priests abusing girls are given far less publicity. If that were to change - if there was a constant drumbeat of reports of priests abusing girls in the media for the next 5 years then that 80% number is very likely to drop precipitously to perhaps 50% or 30% or ???. Since we can't say with any reasonable assurance that the reports are comprehensive, then we must conclude that any statistical analysis of the reports are inherently flawed. There is a second problem with the conclusion too. Pedophilia (and epephilia - Donovan is trying to be too clever by half by claiming that teenage abuse victims aren't a victim of pedophila - technically correct - so we must add epephilia into the mix) is not about sexual orientation. Neither the perpetrator's nor the victim's sexual orientation have anything to do with pedophilia and epehilia. Like rape, child sexual abuse is about power. It is not about sex, it is not about orientation - it is about being more powerful than one's victim. There has never been a proper study done on the actual sexual orientations of the priests that committed abuse. If one were to be done, and if it fell within the parameters of what is known about the sexual orientation of abusers outside the priesthood, then we could expect that about 95% of the abusers are heterosexual and 5% are homosexual. That alone should make us pause on accepting the National Review Board's conclusion as definitive. So yes, the conclusion is incorrect - but that won't stop partisans like Donovan, who has other agendas in play as well (despite his words to the contrary, he wants all homosexuals purged from the ranks of the priesthood, and he is using these despicable acts to help make his case), from making the claims. He'll even twist conclusions found in respected journals to his own end - none of those journals found that homosexuals were disproportionately represented among child molesters - he ignores the power dynamics of abuse in order to conveniently try to make his argument. There is a large amount of same-sex child sexual abuse - but there is a large amount of heterosexual males that have abused boys. If there is any thing that is disproportionate, it is in how many straight men abuse boys (and no - they aren't gays in the closet - they are straight men on a power trip). As an aside, there are some in the academic community that consider celibacy to be a distinct sexual orientation - if we were to accept this, then shouldn't the Natonal Review Board's conclusion be that celibates represent 100% of child molesters in the priesthood?

There are units that will give the Scout Badge automatically to any Webelos that has earned the Arrow of Light. Considering that a Webelos who has earned the Arrow of Light has completed nearly all of the requirements for the Scout Badge, it's understandable, and I doubt anyone will complain to loudly. Is it proper? Not really - a lad who has earned the Arrow of Light has completed NEARLY all of the requirements - he hasn't completed them all. There is a requirement for receiving the Scout Badge of completing some pamphlet exercises that aren't requried for the Scout Badge. Now its possible that the Scoutmaster and Troop could work to have these requirements met before the crossover - provided that the age requirements are met - remember, in Scouting, we earn the badge when the badge is signed off on, not when it is presented - so it's conceivable that the Webelos could have earned their AOL in January, done the Scout requirements before a February crossover ceremony (he's eligible to become a Scout as soon as the AOL is earned), then at the Blue and Gold, be presented with the AOL badge, then do a crossover ceremony, and receive the Scout Badge upon crossing over - nothing would prevent this. (And the SM did not make a mistake - giving the Tenderfoot Rank badge at a crossover would be a mistake - a Webelos can't complete the requirements to be a Tenderfoot - he needs to be in a troop for at least 30 days). Jet is correct - a boy isn't a Boy Scout until he gets his Scout Badge. Turning in the applicaton doesn't make one a Boy Scout. The application has to be signed by the troop leader before a boy is considered a Boy Scout, and the troop leader is to sign the application when the boy has completed the Scout Badge requirements. Ed is also correct - even though a Webelos may have crossed over, until his registration with the Pack has expired, or until he has officially become a member of a Boy Scout troop, he remains a Webelos. There is one thing that irks me a little - too many Troops "retest" AOL recipients on the Scout Oath and Law by making them repeat them from memory - and that's not required for the Scout Badge (although it is required for Arrow of Light and Tenderfoot). The only requirement for the Scout Badge is to understand and agree to live by the Scout Oath, Law, motto, slogan and the Outdoor Code.

Elwood: "What do you say, is it the new Bluesmobile or what?" Jake: "Fix the cigarette lighter" So I was inspired to watch the movie again last night. In the minor role of the Cook County Assessor's Office Clerk is a person very familiar to the Boy Scouts - well known for his movies. In the Blues Brothers, he appears to have no role other than this small acting role. He is a very young...Steven Speilberg. And with Ray Charles, Cab Calloway, Aretha Franklin and John Lee Hooker, you know the music is going to be fantastic.

"You miserable slug! You think you can talk your way out of this, You betrayed me." "No I didn't. Honest...I ran out of gas. I, I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts. IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD."

My list would be terrifically long so here's just some highlights: * wake up from dreaming that my dog was licking my face to find a red fox sitting on my chest licking the salt off my forehead while on a backpacking trip around Isle Royale. * swim 14 mile swims in one two-week camp session, including one 2 mile swim (2 back to back mile swims) with the second mile faster than my poor Scoutmaster could keep up with me in the rowboat (I was a high school competitive long distance swimmer and got into the zone). * raise three orphaned raccoons for release into a forest preserve during a six week Cub Scout Day Camp season at the camp with the Scouts as Nature Director. * wake up a High Adventure Base full of tired Scouts and Scouters at midnight on the last night of the season so they could all see the first Northern Lights of the season in Maine. The campers weren't happy with me at first but once they saw the display, stood awestruck, with the adults telling me the next day that it was one of the highlights of their trips. * Build and camp in a quinzhee every weekend in January and February one winter while leading Troops on an Okpik course at a high adventure base in Maine. * Recite the Legend while standing on a lifeguard hill overlooking the ceremony site while "heat" lightning from a storm in the distance gave a visual show behind me. * Learning at 16 how political the BSA can be at the adult volunteer level when I was fired from my job as summer camp trading post manager after 6 weeks on the job, purportedly because the trading post was a disorganized mess when the camp inspectors came through (on the morning I was closed for the weekly inventory) but learning later, with apologies from the Camp Director, that he was pressured to let me go to get the "A" rating because the guy in charge of the camp inspection disliked my father. With his apologies was a check for the last two weeks of camp salary, a bonus, and a job offer to be trading post manager the next year - turns out that in my 6 weeks, I had loss from theft/damage of $26, and in the last 2 weeks of camp, there was loss from theft/damage of $320. *Everything that has happened in my life since then.

Short of a re-enactment of Columbine or VA-Tech? Not much. Unprovoked physical assault, or any assault with a weapon. Sexual assault. Bullying. Severe Hazing (I'm not kicking someone out of the Troop for sending a new Scout out for left-handed rope, even though it's technically a form of hazing - but if it's hazing that can lead to physical injury? Yep - gone). That's about it. Everything else can be dealt with in other ways - and may be (and is likely to be) better in the long run for the Scout to remain involved with adults engaged in his life.

Welcome to the forum. A few thoughts - but first a thank you for stepping up to help your son's unit - most parents won't step up to take on such a responsibility. You don't mention what you're official position is. ASM sounds like it should fit the bill, considering what you're going to be concentrating on. Two years and Scouts don't even have Tenderfoot yet? They didn't get lost in the shuffle - they got ignored by the previous SM in favor of the Scouts that are oly projects away from Eagle. They've also been ignored by the Scouts that are only projects away from Eagle - and they were allowed to ignore the younger Scouts by the adult leaders. Adult driven? Yep - sure sounds about right. But things are salvagable - so what to do? First, take advantage of training in September. Second, recognize that nothing is going to change overnight. It's going to take a little time and you need to be patient. There is no rush to get the lads to advance to Tenderfoot by the end of the month. Instead, set a reasonable schedule to get it accomplished - one thing you could do is to work with your son on a schedule for him to achieve the ranks and together "pull" the other lads along. If he wants Tenderfoot by the end of September, that's what you work to make happen. Third - you have a campout scheduled every month for the next three months - that's pretty typical for a Scout unit. Advancement can be worked on at all three campouts - even the in at 8 out at 9 the next day campout (side note - a 13 hour campout? Why even bother - I'd cancel it just out of principle). Fourth - why are campouts being cancelled? Was it the former Scoutmaster that would cancel campouts? Are there legitimate reasons for the cancellations or is it just bad planning? If it was the former SM that was cancelling campouts, is there any reason to believe that the trend will continue? Fifth - I can't find any fault in a unit that is concentrating on the historical merit badges if that's what the Scouts wanted to do - these are being offered for a very limited time - and for most of the lads, it won't really effect rank advancement. Besides, there is nothing that will prevent the Scouts from earning both the merit badges and their ranks. Sixth - after you've taken the training, sit down again with the SM and the CC and try to map out what the expectations are going to be moving forward. If the unit is going to become boy-led, now's the time to start working towards that goal - just know that it's going to take time to get there. If the idea is to remain as is, then option one is to find a new Troop and option 2 is to quietly wait them out until you become SM and there is a new CC from amongst new blood coming into the Troop.

Short of a re-enactment of Columbine or VA-Tech? Not much. Unprovoked physical assault, or any assault with a weapon. Sexual assault. Bullying. Severe Hazing (I'm not kicking someone out of the Troop for sending a new Scout out for left-handed rope, even though it's technically a form of hazing - but if it's hazing that can lead to physical injury? Yep - gone). That's about it. Everything else can be dealt with in other ways - and may be (and is likely to be) better in the long run for the Scout to remain involved with adults engaged in his life.

This is going to be harsh - and I mean for it to be harsh. Sure, go ahead and remove the SPL from his post. As soon as you do so, please turn around and tell the committee that you are resigning as Scoutmaster. Why? Because you failed - miserably. As much as you think the Troop needs a new SPL, it needs a new Scoutmaster. The SPL not wanting to talk to you, after an hour of time off by himself should be a big red flag that YOU are a big part of the problem. Don't believe for a moment that you haven't been telegraphing, ever since the election, that the SPL isn't YOUR first choice. The ASPL, not wanting the job, should be a big red flag to you that he saw how the SPL was being "mentored" and wants no part of it. Its apparent that you aren't able to handle the the downs of the job effectively if your first instinct is to remove the lad from his position of SPL. You must tell the committee that you are the wrong man for the job. Don't like this suggestion? Then stop with the power trip and figure out how to work with your new SPL and get past this so that you create a proper working relationship that will lead other lads to want the position of SPL in the future.

Any chance this thread can be shut down and deleted now before anyone thinks the claims are real?

"So here's a Citizenship in the Country question: What impediments are there to prevent a former colony, say Massachusetts or New Jersey, from joining the Commonwealth? I've often wondered...." Well, I believe the impediment would be in the first paragraph of Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution which states that "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation" and if that wasn't clear enough, it was repeated in paraphrase form in the 3rd paragraph of Article 1, Section 10 as "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power". Dominca, huh? Watch out for the baseball players. Oh wait, that's the Dominican Republic. (This message has been edited by calicopenn)

Zero Tolerance = decision making for those without intelligence.

There are times when we all lament that National doesn't do a better job of defining terms - though we know they do it to provide councils with some flexibility and because they figure people should be smart enough to know what is meant. Unfortunately, it leaves a patchwork of acceptablity throughout the franchise. There are some councils where clearing an overgrown trail or painting a church would never be allowed as an acceptable Eagle project because they classify them as routine maintenance while there are others that do allow overgrown trail maintenance or painting to be allowed as Eagle projects. We will never solve that conundrum here - but we do need to understand that we will all have different opinions of what is routine. Some will suggest that routine means something done on a weekly or monthly basis while others will take a broader view of routine and suggest that while it includes those weekly and monthly tasks, it also includes those tasks that may not need to be done weekly, monthly, even annually or every 5 or 10 years, but if deferred, leads to the deterioration and/or inability to use a property. For instance, redoing signs for cemetaries could mean a couple of things - if they're taken down and simply repainted, there will be many that would consider that routine maintenance (just because the maintenance was neglected doesn't make the project unique). However, if the signs are removed and replaced with brand new signs designed and built as a project, I think most (if not all) would consider that to be non-routine. Clearing walking paths? Many will consider this deferred routine maintenance - something that a Scout Unit should take on as a Unit service project. Create new walking paths, or redeveloping an existing walking path (perhaps by turning it into a disabled access trail) - most will agree that it is non-routine. Painting fire hydrants? If it's simple repainting, it may benefit the community but many will consider it routine maintenance, but if the hydrants are repainted with the NFPA color scheme to identify the hydrant pressure (so that fire departments can tell at a glance what the hydrant they've pulled up to is capable of delivering - somthing many departments have been suggesting for the past 10 years or so), many would consider that non-routine. Repainting a room? If that's all that is being done, many will consider that routine maintenance (deferred perhaps, but still routine). Repainting the room as part of a larger project (where perhaps the room is being repositioned for another use)? Most will agree non-routine. As suggested above, it's pretty easy to take even projects that might be considered routine by many and turn them into something non-routine. Of course, there are all kinds of other caveats and circumstances that could come in to play. Repainting a bunch of school or church rooms in a poor community without a lot of resources and with deteriorating properties would probably change a lot of minds on whether it's considered routine or not while repainting a bunch of school rooms in an affluent community that isn't dotted with deteriorating properties and whose schools are well supported by the tax payers might make all of us wonder just what the heck were people thinking in approving that project. This is why I've suggested that spreading myths about CO's not being able to benefit from Eagle projects is just adults not wanting to make decisions. No matter what any of us believes about Eagle projects, when we get right down to it, our decisions on the acceptability is all based on the situational analysis we put into it - and some of us prefer clean lines of absolute rules rather than the fuzzy grays of situational analysis.

I'm going to make an edjumacated guess as to why your district has followed this myth (and it is a myth). I think in many cases when doing a project for a CO, the project is or is pretty darn close to being what would be considered routine maintenance, which is not something that is allowed. Painting the building - whether interior or exterior and whether it's at 1, 5, 10, 20 year cycles, is routine maintenance. When it comes to building maintenance, there aren't necessarily time limits on what is considered routine maintenance. Replacing the roof every 25 years is still routine maintenance, even if you only do it once. It's important to replace the roof when neccessary to keep the building intact - and since everything has a life span, routine is considered based on the building's time, not human time. Unfortunately, many Eagle project proposals for CO's tend to fall into that routine maintenance realm - so some districts just spread the myth that projects can't be done for a CO to avoid having to deal with the issue. But there are still a lot of things that can be done for a CO as an Eagle project that is not routine maintenance. Perhaps a church wants to have a labyrinth built on their property (many people find walking a labyrinth to be soothing, reflective and healing) - sounds like a great Eagle project to me. Maybe the local American Legion hall wants to convert one of their rooms into a food pantry - sounds like a great Eagle project to me. And since neither of them would be considered routine, why should they not be able to tap into a unit they sponsor looking for someone who might need an Eagle project? You can certainly allow projects for CO's - you just have to make sure the project doesn't fit into a definition of routine - and that's something that needs to be guarded against whether the beneficiary is a CO or not - to just ban projects for CO's because it's more likely that a project for a CO would be routine just sounds to me like adults not wanting to have to make decisions.

I like most of the suggestions being given - I think some of it is spot on. Calling off the dogs - spot on. I can't think of any reasonable reason why you should have to call in dogs, let alone would call in dogs. And while most of the suggestions are good, I'm not a fan of some of them being used in this instance - and the reason is twofold - first, it's presented to us as an anonymous tip (which suggests that the tipster is anonymous to eolesen and the crew's leadership). When the tipster is anonymous, we can't really tell if the tipster has any credibility. (This is different than a media-reported anonymous source - the reporter may not release the name of the source, but chances are pretty good the reporter knows the source and can judge the credibility - even Deep Throat, who wasn't known, still provided some kind of corroborating documentation). Second, and I mean no disrespect of eolesen, is the statement later that "Frankly, he fits the profile for what I'd consider an at-risk kid for using drugs.". Now it may very well be that eolesen has been trained in what would be a profile of someone at-risk for using drugs - but the majority of people, including Scouters, have no real training on what that profile would be. I see the words "I consider" and it suggests to me someone who has developed their own profile based on the information they have found, or picked up talking to others. If you were to ask a police officer, or doctor, or counselor trained in such profiles, you're going to hear, most of the time, a flat out statement "he fits the profile for a kid at risk for using drugs" with no qualifying "I'd consider" or "I think" words. Of course the lad may very well fit the profile of a person at risk for using drugs, but none of us have enough information to say that he does. So given that, let's review. We have an anonymous tip without any corresponding proof, and a belief that the Scout fits a certain profile, which may or may not be an accurate profile - and we're ready to bring in drug-sniffing dogs, law enforcement, contracts, parent conferences and singling out the youth for a pre-trip conference. Doesn't sound very Scout-like to me. I do think keeping an eye out is appropriate - but that should be par for the course on every trip. I'd be keeping that eye out on all of them - it's the ones that never seem to give people trouble that sometimes are the biggest drug users. I like the suggestion of the pre-trip letter that was suggested and including a reminder about the Scouts policies on drugs, alcohol, fireworks, smoking, etc. You're signaling that you aren't blind to the fact that experimentation with these things happen at this age level, warning anyone that was thinking about it that you're going to be keeping an eye out, and your suggesting to the parents (without spelling it out) that they have an obligation to know just what their crew members are packing for the trip. I just wouldn't turn that into a contract - it's a bit too heavy handed for me. I'm not a fan of the idea of singling out the lad for a pre-trip conference, or for any extra scrutiny. There just doesn't seem to be enough fact behind the suspicions to justify it. Calico (of course, all of this could be moot in this case if in fact eolesen's anonymous tipster isn't that anonymous, and if the statement that the lad fits a profile is based on training received - but I'm commenting only on what we've been told and my comments may therefore fit in other situations)

Let's consider what offerings are used for. In many places, it's used to help fund the operations of the church. In others where there might be a good investment fund that funds the operations of the church, it may be used to fund good works elsewhere. In some, it's used to fund specific capital needs. For some, its used to buy those little testaments that are sent to Scout camps, etc. All of these are worthwhile projects. At Scout Camp? I think it becomes a little more complicated. That's not to say that it is a bad idea, just that there are some other considerations to take in to account. The first that pops into mind is that there is minimal cost to the camp to run the interfaith services. The camp may hire a chaplain to run the service once a week, but chances are good the chaplain is a volunteer. Also, the chapel is likely (and should be) an outdoor chapel where the upkeep costs are minimal (most of which, such as replacing log benches, etc. can be done during OA work weekends during or prior to camp). The second is that, as mentioned by others, not all traditions pass a collection plate, so if it is an interfaith service for all faiths of every kind, there needs to be some sensitivity to all the faiths traditions. I think it needs to be explained well and that in this case, it would be much more appropriate if the collected funds were sent elsewhere - and while folks have mentioned worthy causes such as the World Friendship Fund, or the Gulf or Haiti disaster relief funds, I'd probably lean more towards a local fund - a local food bank, or volunteer fire/ambulance departments(most of our camps are in rural areas - bet most of those fire departments/ambulance services are volunteer), or local Red Cross office, or even a local literacy program. I think that would be great publicity for the Scouts and the Camp that over the summer, the Scouts that attended Camp Boy Scout collected $1,000 at the Scout's Own services for whatever local program it goes to. Talk about developing positive community relations! I think it should also be suggested that before the Scouts are brought to the service, that the SPL or SM let the lads know that a collection plate will be passed, that no one is under any obligation or pressure to donate, that the money will be earmarked for whatever the charity is (announced in advance), that it is strictly voluntary, that 50 cents or a dollar is perfectly appropriate to give but if one wants to contribute more, they can, and that the SM/"bank" have a small wad of singles to loan to Scouts who haven't had a chance to break higher denomination bills yet (or can get in on a pool of Scouts and one person makes the contribution for the whole Troop - say a Unit has 20 people all agreeing to give a dollar, and one person drops in a $20 and everyone pays that person their $1 later as an example). As for the prayer cards - I do like the idea of them, but I think I'd prefer that they already be made up and that they be available as "souvenirs" for anyone who would like one at a minimal cost (say $1 if the card costs less than $1 each to make) both at the end of the service and at the Trading Post throughout the week, with perhaps the "profits" being used either to add to the charitable donation, or to be used for a chaplaincy campership. I don't think I would send a letter complaining about the practice - I would send a letter suggesting changes in the practice so that people aren't caught unaware, and that there is more meaning to any collections made. As a Scout, I would probably have felt pressure to put something in the basket, if only from my peers who are putting something in the basket possibly because they're feeling pressure from the rest of us because we're putting something in the basket(vicious circle), but I wouldn't be impressed with what the money was going to. As an adult, I wouldn't give any money to a collection with this as a cause and would probably feel the same way as dScouter - bothered but unsure what to do about it. When I was a Scout, and now as an adult, if the basket was being passed and I was told it was going to go to the local fire department, I'd happily put money in the basket, and more than the suggested donation.

Alton Brown - Boy Scout. Who knew?

The assumption is that if the lad is going to bring drugs, he's going to put it in his pack and leave it overnight. I wouldn't leave it in a pack overnight - I'd bring it with the next day and put it in my pack then. Just something to think about.

Stosh, It will be more cost effective to buy your wild rice in a store than to try to have the Troop harvest it. In Wisconsin, wild rice harvesters between the ages 16-65 must purchase an annual license which is $8.25/year. Minor age children may harvest under a license holder's license but must reside in the same household as the license holder. Essentially, you would need a parent or older sibling of each Scout along for the harvest. You can only harvest in a boat no longer than 17' long and no wider than 36" wide. Rice may only be harvested during the open season, which isn't date specific - it varies by waterway based on when the rice is ripe. You may not get a notice of a season opening until 24 hours before it does - not good for planning. Still, it does sound like a lot of fun - and work - but if cost is the issue, at about $6 - $8 per pound, buying is the better deal. If, however, you're doing it because it would be a fun and unique experience, and the Troop can be a bit flexible in their planning, then I think that would be a great outing - if I'm remembering where you're from correctly, it's about 3 hours to the rice waters - and since collecting can't start until 10 am (to give the rice a chance to dry from overnight dew), you could easily do this - heck - you might even be able to arrange a visit from native rice harvesters to teach techniques and lead the group.(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

I would hope that Scouts would be rowdy - shows that they're active and engaged and excited.

Do you have a calendar with the council/district events that could be used as a discusson jumping off point? Have a couple of calendars with previous years activities on it? That could be a good start. Do you have the PLC doing the planning or is the whole Troop involved? Are you giving the SPL and PLC ownership of the planning or is it being presented as "give us your ideas of what you want to do and we'll consider it?". Are you allowing time for just plain old brainstorming before getting down to the details of putting things on a calendar, or are you trying to pigeonhole things into a calendar as you're brainstorming. Are you even brainstorming? The big question is what motivation is there for the Scouts to do the planning if they know that the Scoutmaster will just do it for them if they don't? Here's my suggestions: Have the SPL call a planning meeting of the PLC to plan for the year - give him a blank calendar in advance, and a calendar of district/council events. Also, if the unit traditionally goes to camp on specific weeks of summer, block that out in the calendar right away - the PLC can still decide where to go, but if everyone is used to going th 2nd week of July, I wouldn't change that unless absolutely neccessary. At the regular Troop meeting before the PLC planning meeting, have the SPL conduct a 15 minute or so brainstorming session with the entire Troop - all you're doing is generating ideas - and the SPL and PLC will be able to see which ideas seem to really excite the Troop and which don't. It's important not to mock any idea. No matter how off the wall the idea, write it down. Even if you know the idea will violate G2SS, write it down (you can always take it off the list at the PLC with an explanation as to why it can't be done). The goal is to generate ideas, not to shut ideas down. If a Scout comes up with an idea that violates G2SS and you shut it off immediately, you may shut the Scout down completely and miss out on a fantastic idea he may have later. Now, with a calendar with Summer Camp dates blocked off, and a calendar with district events in hand, the PLC should first decide which District/Council events it wants to do - put them in the calendar. If your district has a spring and fall camporee, and a Klondike - and the PLC says do them all, you've now gone from having to plan 12 months to planning 4 months. You've just made the job easier - the calendar is no longer blank, progress is being made, and some pressure is taken off. The PLC may decide that no outings will be done in December - one more month down, only 7 to go - makes things look much easier now, doesn't it? Maybe the PLC decides that the Troop won't do an outing in August (because of Summer Camp the month before) but want the Patrols to do their own thing - one more month down, only 6 to go. Not too hard to plan for 6 months, right? So now the PLC goes through the brainstorming ideas, whittles them down - maybe get's to 7 or 8, then starts plugging them in to the calendar, with a couple as spares just in case one or two chosen ones can't be done. Viola - big picture planning is done. Now I think the key to making this successful is the statement the Scoutmaster should make right at the beginning of the PLC planning session meeting. That announcement should be "You folks are in charge of coming up with the calendar of activities for the year. I will not plan a single activity. Any month without an activity planned at the end of the meeting will simply not have an activity done. We will not plan activities on the spur of the moment - we will not plan an activity for September in September. No exception. If we leave tonight without any activities put on that calendar, then we will simply have no activities outside of Troop meetings for the entire year" - then stick to it. If the Scouts think you're bluffing, call them on it - let the calendar sit - and on that first month, when they don't do anything and ask why not, tell them they didn't plan anything and offer to let them hold their planning meeting again.

Got to say that Beavah said it better than I did.

I think the problem is that we're all trying to find that one big thing to point the finger of blame at, and it just doesn't exist. Any declines in membership should be likened to a death by a thousand papercuts, rather than a single traumatic event. In the 70's, the BSA started seeing a decline in membership and many were quick to blame the changes in the program while ignoring such things as a decline in birth numbers in the mid-60's and a very real change in the way American's thought of the military after the Vietnam War (and true or not - let's not argue that point - the American Public has always had an image of the BSA as a junior military style organization). There were plenty of other issues at play as well. The membership of the BSA has risen and fallen since - it appears to be a cyclical pattern, but no one has come up with any reason why the membership numbers are cycling the way they are. If there was a single explanation, it should be apparent. I'm guessing that there are a number of factors involved at any one time. Society is changing all the time - the traditional is being looked on as the moribund - the radical is being looked on as traditional - the off the wall is being looked on as radical - the just plain nuts is being looked on as off the wall. Who could have predicted in the 1970's that 5 year olds would be carrying phones to school? Anyone who said that back then would have been figuratively patted on the head and told they had an active imagination. As for Scouts Canada - again, we're quick to point to external policies such as going co-ed and then trying to use the data we know to bolster our case, yet there is no definitive proof that Scouts Canada membership numbers dropped because of going co-ed. Some have suggested the real issue is a problem of membership retention - that Scouts in Canada stay for an average of one year, and that affects recruitment. Some suggest that the number of small units in Canada have a major impact - if you have a unit of 11 people with one dedicated leader and that leader moves to a new job, etc., what happens to those 11 Scouts? They're likely out of the program. We also have to consider that Canada has a separate, though affiliated, French-speaking Scout association. Like in the US, there may be a number of different reasons - and there is no single smoking gun. Trying to compare Canadian numbers to US numbers is folly anyways. The entirety of Prince Edward Island has less Scouts than a good size District in a good size Council in the US. As for the BP Scouts - there may have been a vocal group of folks that left Scouts Canada for BP Scouts but the BP Service Association (they can't use the Scout's name) has only 13 units nationwide - being generous and saying they each have 100 members, that's only 1,300 members - that doesn't explain a drop from over 200,000 to under 100,000. I know some are calling for Mazzuca's head for making the statements he has made, but I think that is short-sighted. I've mentioned many times that for the BSA to survive in the long-term, it has to take into account what's happening on a societal basis and adjust as needed to remain relevant. Society is changing - and the Boy Scouts of America is not anchor enough to stop it and not tiller enough to change the course. It's time to stop resisting and time to start going with the flow.